4.6 Review

Post-traumatic stress disorder as a risk factor for dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 217, 期 5, 页码 600-608

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2020.150

关键词

Post-traumatic stress disorder; dementia; risk; systematic review; meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  2. Alzheimer's Society [AS-SF-15b-002, AS-SF-15-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been identified as a potential risk factor for developing dementia. There are currently, however, no meta-analyses quantifying this risk. Aims To systematically review and quantify the risk of future dementia associated with PTSD across populations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019130392. Method We searched nine electronic databases up to 25 October 2019 for longitudinal studies assessing PTSD and risk of dementia. We used random- and fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool estimates across studies. Results PTSD was associated with a significant risk for all-cause dementia: pooled hazard ratio HR = 1.61 (95% CI 1.43-1.81, I-2 = 85.8%, P < 0.001; n = 1 693 678; 8 studies). Pooled HR was 1.61 (95% CI 1.46-1.78; I-2 = 80.9%, P < 0.001; n = 905 896; 5 studies) in veterans, and 2.11 (95% CI 1.03-4.33, I-2 = 91.2%, P < 0.001; n = 787 782; 3 studies) in the general population. The association between PTSD and dementia remained significant after excluding studies with high risk of bias (HR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.39-1.73, I-2 = 83.9%, P < 0.001; n = 1 684 928; 7 studies). Most studies included were retrospective and there was evidence of high heterogeneity. Conclusions This is the first meta-analysis quantifying the association of PTSD and risk of dementia showing that PTSD is a strong and potentially modifiable risk factor for all-cause dementia. Future studies investigating potential causal mechanisms, and the protective value of treating PTSD are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据